Court condones delay in legal rep appointment due to special circumstances. Suit dismissed for lack of contract evidence.

The Court set aside the abatement and condoned the delay in bringing the legal representative on record due to special circumstances. Regarding the case on an oral contract for importing shirts, the High Court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to definitively establish the terms of the contract through oral evidence, leading to the lack of foundation for the claim and subsequent dismissal with costs throughout.

---

---

Issues:
1. Abatement of appeal due to the death of the plaintiff-respondent and delay in bringing legal representative on record.
2. Merits of the case regarding an oral contract for importing shirts and recovery of unpaid amount.

Analysis:
1. The preliminary objection raised was regarding the abatement of the appeal due to the death of the plaintiff-respondent and the delay in bringing the legal representative on record. The Court considered the circumstances, including the appellant being a pardanashin lady who had severed ties with the place of the respondent's death. It was noted that the appellant only learned of the death through a letter from her counsel. The Court found sufficient cause to set aside the abatement and condone the delay, ruling against the preliminary objection.

2. The case revolved around an oral contract for importing shirts, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's husband had entered into a contract with him. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's husband had paid an initial amount and agreed to pay the balance on arrival of the goods. However, the terms of the alleged contract were not reduced to writing and were to be proven through oral evidence. The trial Judge found the evidence inconclusive as it lacked specifics of the contract terms. On appeal, the District Judge acknowledged the order for shirts but noted the informal nature of the business relationship. Despite this, the District Judge decreed the suit for a specific amount. The High Court emphasized the need to establish the exact terms of the contract before enforcing it. As the terms were not definitively proven, and crucial details regarding the goods ordered were missing, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the foundation of the claim, leading to the dismissal of the suit with costs throughout.

---